Seth Bakes’ annotated bibliography deals with the Northeastern University co-op web app. Similar to myself, Seth focused more on the problem than discipline in the problem statement, which I agreed with. I felt that the problem was more relevant to the annotated bibliography than identifying a discipline. The discipline is more implied in the text, where he and I both explain the type of of problem and the reader can infer that his has to deal a software app and mine has to deal with computer hardware and software.
In the citation section, Seth broke each citation tag (author, ref, and title) onto their own line and then included the entire citation in a comment. I think that I like this style better than my own as I just typed the entire citation on one line and then just inserted the tags where they belonged. The only issue that I saw with Seth’s citation versus mine is that in the formatted view, the entire citation was not able to be seen, just the text within tags. A combination of his citation style with mine would have been sufficient, where the entire citation was there in text but the tags were formatted in separate lines for better code readability.
With regards to Seth’s annotation, he and I followed a similar format. We each chose one type from each tag so there were three tagged sections, one background, one summary, and one relevance. When reading his entire annotation, his three sections seem to flow together nicely which was one thing that I struggled with. I felt that when reading my annotation, you could tell that the small paragraph was written in three different sections.
Comparing Seth’s annotated bibliography to my own made me see view mine a little differently. I found that my tags could have been formatted a bit better so reading the code would be easier. It also made me realize that I could have made much more smooth transitions between elements of the annotation. I also realized that both of us forgot to tag the type for title (journal, website, book, or website), so I would have changed that.
